Mr Skeptic

You can change the brain wave patterns of your brain. Usually, the changes are involuntary, but they can be purposefully changed via meditation. Just like some people can learn to control their heart rate and such. It is easier to control your brain wave patterns if you use biofeedback, but that will freak out your yoga teacher

The Big Foreplay. While one might expect the laws of conservation (or mass-energy, charge, momentum, angular momentum) to hold, they have not been tested at these scales, and it is unclear how these things came to be from whatever was there before.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the earth would be permanantly damaged from bing so close to the sun when it goes red giant. I disagree. Closed or partially closed artificial environments (of which artificial sunlight would be a part) would be very important if we decide to live underground (or underwater ). If we do go the way of the nuke, or get hit by a big meteor, they will be vital. They will also be useful if we want to colonize other planets. And if we learn how to do fusion, we will have the extra energy to do this on a massive scale.

I thought models showed that the earth would be blown farther away by the solar wind. The earth would survive, but would be toasted. Unless we moved it somehow. Or we could go live in space for a while until the sun cools again, then return to earth.

I can easily defend a claim such that no one can put up a coherent logical argument against them. Observe: Quantum mechanics is wrong, and I'm right!!!!! Lalalalalala not listening! NOT LISTENING!!! You can't critisize this because I have not accepted your criticisms of my previous claims. Lalalalalala not listening! NOT LISTENING!!! There's no logical argument that can stand against that

I think people are incurably "categorist". We place things in categories, and race just so happens to be a very easily visible category. And we are biased toward other people in our categories (in general).

I agree, no reason to give him Google hits that he can brag about on other sites.

The pseudoforce you are looking for is inertia. I trust that with that you can figure the rest out, or do you need more help?

Not true. Yeast can reproduce sexually but I don't think they have senescence. I think aging is probably the price we pay for being mulitcellular.

I knew before posting that that the lemmings "mass suicide" was a fake. That just makes it funnier IMO, since the lemmings are, in fact, not wrong.

I think he meant this one. http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/gravital-1/gravital-1.html Happy hunting.

I prefer "Intuitiveness has no restraints such as reality." If nature doesn't make sense to us, does that mean that our intuition is wrong, or that nature is unintuitive? My thought is that if something doesn't make sense, then you probably don't understand it well enough.

Perhaps we should consider that in a sense, we don't really age. We are born from a cell that came from another cell that came from another cell... You could say that we are thousands of years old (or more). Cells seem to have the mechanisms to not age, but as organisms, we do age.

Then a case could be made that he is a bad teacher. Answering questions is part of the job description. Suppressing curiosity is the opposite of what teachers should do. He should be fired, and perhaps sued as well. It could be argued that he is a good demonstration as to why people need critical thinking skills. They will be exposed to all manner of "facts" from media, advertisers, government, parents, peers, and who knows who else, and should learn that some sources are not trustworthy and that all sources occasionally make mistakes. However, children are not too notable for their critical thinking skills. If the child's parents are cooperating in this or complacent, and they don't manage to learn about critical thinking, it will be a disaster... So yes, it could be abuse.

Sort of. We are free to define words as we please. But unless we actually define it according to its proper usage, various statements referring to "humans" may no longer be true. We may also be forced to make more than one definition. Since "human" is a fuzzy concept, it may be best to ask a few questions while seeking the answer: Are all humans people? Are all people human? Are certain physical attributes required to be human? Are certain mental attributes required to be human? Are certain DNA attributes required to be human? Are certain abilities required to be human? Are chimeras human, and what might that depend on? If you took a human and replaced all their DNA with non-human DNA but made no other changes, would they still be human? Might a mutant from a human not be a human? I'll think of some more later if you wish.

Why don't you just use a compound bow? Smaller, more powerful, easier to use, quieter.

There may be no such thing as a dumb question, but there certainly are dumb people. Of course, the teacher's job is to teach, even the dumb ones, but it can take down the rest of the class if one dumb person needs to keep asking questions that everyone else knows the answer to. Maybe, but God help you if the religious folks disagree.

Buoyancy. This only happens because the denser fluid surrounding the object is being pulled down by gravity more than the object.

So much for my rhetorical question. I should have just said, brilliant people are a minority because they are defined as the top few percent (aka the minority on the top).

As everyone knows, having nuclear weapons = OK, but developing nuclear weapons = bad. Nobody wants new players in the MAD game. I'm afraid that it is in the best interests of Iran to finish their weapon, but in the interests of very many others to stop them.

So long as you remember that the antropomorphizing is a metaphor, you will be fine.

Sorry, I was joking. Someone mentioned that saying it was a correct but completely worthless definition. A similar thing may happen here, as I don't expect there is a clear difference. I do hope you don't also want a definition for person as well. (BTW kangaroos walk on all fours when they aren't in a hurry) The nice thing about Intelligent Design is that everything should fit into neat little categories (well, if the intelligence is like any we know about). Unfortunately, this does not happen so we have extremely fuzzy categories for everything biological. Even the definition for species has a few flaws, like how horses and donkeys are different species but can interbreed. Of course, defining what it means to be human is an important endeavor, but I am not optimistic that it will be perfect.

Yes, anyone with an agenda will have at least a little bit of bias. Obviously, this does not mean that the study is worthless. In any case, if it is important, there will be confirming research.

A human is defined as a featherless biped.

Well, at least he is smart enough to realize how the url for justgotowned.com works. Maybe he will figure out how to put in html links next. I wonder if he also knows that mods can edit his posts